Posts

The Appeal - Sky v Skykick

Image
Royal Courts of Justice Author Dr Neil Clifton   Licence CC BY-SA BY-SA 2.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Newey, Lord Justice Nugee and Sir Christopher Floyd) Sky Ltd and others v Skykick, UK Ltd and another (Rev2) [2021] EWCA Civ 1121 (26 July 2021) The issue before the Court of Appeal in  Sky Ltd and others v Skykick, UK Ltd and another (Rev2) [2021] EWCA Civ 1121 (26 July 2021) was whether Sky Ltd., Sky International AG and Sky UK Ltd. could prevent Skykick UK Ltd and Skykick Inc. from using the sign SKYKICK in relation to email migration and cloud storage services.  I summarized the dispute as follows in  Trade marks - Sky v Skykick, The Final Chapter   on 9 May 2020: "On 23 May 2016 Sky PLC and its subsidiaries Sky AG and Sky UK Ltd. ("Sky") issued proceedings against Skykick UK Ltd and Skykick Inc.("Skykick") for infringement of their EU and UK trade marks and passing off. Skykick denied infringement and passi

Interim Injunctions - the Appeal in AutoStore v Ocado

Image
Ocado Van Author  Tomjhpage   Licence  CC BY-SA 4.0   Source    Wikimedia   J ane Lambert Court of Appeal (Sir Geoffrey Vos MR, Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lord Justice Nugee) AutoStore Technology AS v Ocado Group Plc and other [ 2021] EWCA Civ 1003 (7 July 2021) This was an appeal by Ocado Plc, its subsidiaries and Tharsus Group Ltd from the decision of Judge Hacon in  Autostore Technology AS v Ocado Group Plc and others [2021] EWHC 1614 (Pat) (11 June 2021) not to restrain AutoStore Technology AS from disclosing to the US International Trade Commission a document marked "CONFIDENTIAL & WITHOUT PREJUDICE PROVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS ONLY." I discussed Judge Hacon's decision in  Interim Injunctions - AutoStore Technology AS v Ocado Group Plc   on 14 July 2021,  I explained the reason for the dispute as follows: "In the proceedings before the Commission, AutoSrore alleged that Ocado had infringed several of its US patents. Ocado pleaded t

Trade Marks and Passing off - Easygroup v Easyway SBH

Image
Saint Barthélemy Author Starus   Licence CC-BY-SA 3.9   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Mr Recorder Campbell) Easygroup Ltd and others v Easyway SBH and another (Rev1) [2021] EWHC 2007 (IPEC) (22 July 2021) Saint Barthélemy is a small French possession in the West Indes.  Easyway SBH is a company incorporated in the territory which runs a meet and greet service on the island that has included flight booking and arranging car hires.  All its services are performed on Saint Barthélemy but it has a website in English that is used by travel agents and individuals from the UK. The company corresponded with enquirers who approached it through the website.  Stephane-Michel Roche, the company's founder, director owner of 60% of its shares, estimated that between 200 and 250 of Easyway's customers were British and they constituted some 3% of its business. Despite their remoteness from the UK and even though all its services were performe

Patents - Mitsubishi Electric Corporation and another v Archos SA and others

Image
Author  Dori   Public Domain Source  Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Patents Court  (Mr Justice Mellor)  Mitsubishi Electric Corporation and another v Archos SA and others   [[2021] EWHC 1639 (Pat) (16 June 2021) The first claimant is the proprietor of European patents  2,254,259 ("259") and  1,903 689 ("689") . They are part of a portfolio called the "MCP Pool!" which the claimants have promised to license on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory ("FRAND") terms.  The defendants are manufacturers of 4G mobile phones.  The claimants argued that the defendants required their licence in order to comply with the LTE (4G) standard concerned with the transmission of a scheduling request (SR) to request uplink resources. The defendants denied that those patents were essential for compliance with the patent and pleaded that the patents were invalid for lack of novelty and an inventive step.  They also alleged that 689 was bad for added matter. The Pro

Trade Marks and Passing off - Lifestyle Equities CV v The Copyrights Group

Image
  Jane Lambert Chancery Division  (Mr Justice Marcus Smith) L ifestyle Equities CV v The Copyrights Group Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 1212 (Ch) (10 May 2021) This was an action for trade mark infringement and passing off,   The first claimant was the registered proprietor of the following European Union and United Kingdom trade marks and the second claimant was its exclusive licensee: EU005482484   EU00908456469   EU000364257   EU000532895   EU015737653  and  UK00001259226 The claimants complained that the first, second and third defendants had used a mark which has unfortunately not been reproduced in the BAILII transcript or in any of the reports on Westlaw.  They also alleged that those defendants' use of that mark amounted to passing off. The Allegations Para 24 of the particulars of claim alleged: "From a precise date unknown to the Claimants but before the issue of the Claim Form herein and believed to have been from around the second quarter of 2015, the Defendants and

Patents - Damages for infringement - Anan Kasei Co. v Neo Chemicals & Oxides

Image
Ceric Oxid Author  Walkerma  Reproduced with kind permission of the copyright owner  Jane Lamber t Patents Court (Mr Justice Fanxcourt) Anan Kasei Co., Ltd and another v Neo Chemicals & Oxides (Europe) Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 1035 (Ch) (4 May 2021) On 9 Feb 2921 the defendants applied for summary determination of the following issues pursuant to Part 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules: "1. Whether goods brought from China into and stored in a bonded warehouse in the UK are imported and/or kept within the meaning of s.60 of the Patents Act 1977. 2. Whether goods brought from China into and stored in the UK for the purpose of export and distribution overseas are imported and/or kept within the meaning of s.60 of the Patents Act 1977. 3. Whether the defendants are entitled to assert that: a. but for the infringing importation and keeping of goods into the UK, Neo UK would have routed those same goods through a non-UK port, such as Oslo, Norway, and accordingly not have infringe